I write in response to Grant Hermes reporting on my comments at the Law School Forum Wednesday evening. Hermes wrote that I "alluded to the idea that the governor’s proposed bill may have long-term negative effects on political areas outside of labor disputes, such as taxes and the rising cost in higher education." This is a complete misrepresentation of what I said and meant. I was talking about the crisis of debt, and how higher education is part of this crisis because we cost so much. Walker has had nothing to do [with] having caused this problem; indeed, his measures are designed to at least address the crisis of public debt in a forceful way. At no point in my discussion of this aspect of the problem did I implicate Walker's plan as a source of the problem. The cost of higher education has skyrocketed at twice the skyrocketing rate of medical care costs over the course of the last twenty years, and we are the source of this problem, not Walker.

Donald Downs
Meiklejohn Professor of Political Science, Law, and Journalism

Wow. I was going to put in my diary that Prof. Althouse criticized a right-wing institution today, only to learn from wikip (supported by their last several editorials) that the Badger Herald is now liberal.

My Dad, who was a Dept Head, always hated being quoted by the local College paper, because he was always, always, misquoted.

It is systemic to the entire newspaper industry and evidence of either a total lack of journalistic ethics or the stupidity of the reporters. I say both.

We get misquoted in our local paper EVEN when we submit a written press release and ask that it be printed as submitted. They STILL change the wording, leave out pertinent parts, misspell words (I can do that just fine without their help) and insert their own speculations about what we (our CSD) is trying to say.

Hermes decided on the the article's substance before the event. He attended to learn a few details he could use to create a believable atmosphere. Not only did he distort Down's comments, but he manged to slip in the required leftist activist to ensure his liberal readers knew which side of the issue they were supposed to take.

Good for Professor Downs. Now if the readers of the Badger Herald would just imagine the same phenomena occurring in every single article they read, no matter what the topic, they'd see why smart people wholly distrust the MSM.

Professor Downs made a number of quite complicated points in a very brief amount of time. (This was also true of several other speakers, whose often interesting and informative views were not reported on in this story.)

The reporter got this piece wrong, but I think it is fair to say that Professor Down's articulation published in Althouse (and now posted on the Badger Herald website) may be a bit more clear than what was said last night. In addition, Prof. Downs needed to leave early, so there was probably little or no opportunity to check quotes with him.

I am no stranger to being misquoted in the press, or in student academic papers purporting to quote my lectures or interviews. Sadly, this goes with the territory.

I would not be so quick to ascribe ideological motivations to an error in reporting in this case.

"I would not be so quick to ascribe ideological motivations to an error in reporting in this case."

Do you thinking it's "ascrib[ing] political motivations" to a person to guess that they mishear something because it's what they expect to hear? That is, a UW student expects to hear a professor attack the conservative governor and misreports it. Where is the ideological motive?

I mean, why wasn't there someone on the panel who presented a forceful defense of the approach Walker is taking? What does it say about our university and our law school that Downs's statements -- which are almost painfully moderate -- read as conservative here -- indeed they are misread because even these painfully moderate comments are too conservative not to be flipped into something more liberal?

Alan, I'd give the "honest misinterpretation" defense a bit more credence if they ever missed in the opposite political direction.

In other words, mis-interpreting comments in a more conservative manner than they were intended, or mis-reporting in a way that makes the conservative individual or point of view look better than it really should.

"Now if the readers of the Badger Herald would just imagine the same phenomena occurring in every single article they read, no matter what the topic, they'd see why smart people wholly distrust the MSM."

Do you thinking it's "ascrib[ing] political motivations" to a person to guess that they mishear something because it's what they expect to hear? That is, a UW student expects to hear a professor attack the conservative governor and misreports it. Where is the ideological motive?

The problematic word here isn't "ideological." It's "motive."

In a profound way that is really subverts both the academy and the media. Their motives are so pure they don't know how ideological they are.

It is systemic to the entire newspaper industry and evidence of either a total lack of journalistic ethics or the stupidity of the reporters. I say both.

The Journal Sentinel wants to do a story on couples who disagree on this issue. My husband, who has been to Madison twice to protest (he is an engineer in the private sector but was indoctrinated by his union professor father because PhDs need those union protections! especially at a fourth-rate school!) and I are in a mixed marriage. He wants to be in the story and I do not because I absolutely do not trust the reporter/paper to cast me in a bad light.

Condoleezza Rice tells an anecdote from when she was very young and had just got her PhD.She was invited to a symposium on current politics, or something like that (she thought, because she was the only registered Republican with a PhD in the San Francisco Bay area), and did her valiant best to hold up the flag for Republican principles.However, after the talk-fest, a nice elderly couple came up to her and warmly commended her bravery for standing up against that terrible Reagan Administration, especially considering her youth and age. They had not heard a word she had said.

I mean, why wasn't there someone on the panel who presented a forceful defense of the approach Walker is taking? What does it say about our university and our law school ...

If you invite a bunch of labor supporters to speak, you might not hear management's side. The time to rectify the balance was before the forum. But if the professor can make a case for stripping workers of their collective bargaining rights, I'm sure that would still be timely

But I want to know why do we never hear from GBLTQ folks who oppose same-sex marriage? I am sure they are legion.

Downs added his letter as a comment over at the site, but there's no correction appended to the article itself, and it remains to be seen whether the paper copy of the paper will have the letter in it.

Embarrassingly, the photograph at the article has misidentifies the person depicted.

Well, I want to thank Prof. Downs for that honest assessment, which it seems adds him to the people who need to be lied about by the media. We'll be seeing a Hitler mustache on him very soon.

I also want to apologize for implying that such a point of view would be completely absent, although in actuality I only asked if it would be, but what I expected was not the case, at least as far as Mr. Downs is concerned. Good for him.

Reporter probably biased toward the left and against Walker and is inclined to misinterpret or misrepresent what Prof Downs says to fit his own biases and preconceptions.

Let me suggest - just to be overly generous - a possible defense.

Back in my Cornell undergraduate days I was president of the university pro-life group. (No kidding.) On one occasion we brought a speaker from University of Chicago law school who (a) would speak against elective abortion from a legal *and* a Jewish perspective and (b) happened to have a son at Cornell so it was a nice chance for him to visit.

The Cornell Daily Sun got it completely wrong in their report the next day. The reporter took what the law professor was arguing *against* as what he was arguing for. The professor tried to explain, "This is the Supreme Court's argument in that case", and then respond to it. But sometimes us undergraduate rubes can't follow the nuances of an academic presentation - we mistake "they say" for "now let me tell what I think". One of my friends in the group had precisely the same misunderstanding as did the reporter. It was an honest mistake.

But the Daily Sun did not print our letter clarifying the misunderstanding.

Do I think this Wisconsin reporter made an honest mistake? No. But it's possible.

“I know that the higher education here in Wisconsin is being threatened by this bill,” Rickman said."

The reporter managed to find this quote parroting the leftist position. No similar summary of any other position is included. How can this be honest? Even if you're so biased you think this is self evident, which is probably true, he can still count to two can't he? Two sides, two summaries?

So I admit, this could be the result of honest error if neither the journalist nor the entire editorial staff can count to two.

I am sickened by these reactionary public unions who use the force of law to confiscate the fruits of the labor of the people; people who have no freedom to work at their job without being in unionized bondage. Unionism without employee freedom is slavery!!

Ann Althouse said...I mean, why wasn't there someone on the panel who presented a forceful defense of the approach Walker is taking?

Professor, you are in the best position to answer that question. I can think of several possibilities. (1) There was no one on the law faculty willing to make such a defense out of fear of ridicule or punishment. (2) There was no one on the faculty who was willing to make the defense because they found it ideologically repulsive. (3) A willing defender was excluded.

None of these possibilities reflect well on the University of Wisconsin.

I see that the usual suspects are every bit as incompetent as the "boy reporter" is. [Actually, I think Jimmy Olsen would have gotten it right, but that was back in the day when "reporting" was a craft and not an attitude and narrative learned in "Journalism". I'm pretty sure journalism is the last recourse for those about to fail out of "[insert interest group] Studies" or the College Of Education". Not that anyone has ever actually failed out of an Education major.]

I don't "oppose" gay marriage; I just don't care one way or the other because even if it becomes legal, I have no plans of taking advantage of it.

The biggest benefit I see is Social Security survivor money. Since there will be no such thing by the time I die (even if it's just next year), I see no point in being "married", which carries a lot of contextual baggage that does not apply to me.

"But sometimes us undergraduate rubes can't follow the nuances of an academic presentation - we mistake "they say" for "now let me tell what I think". One of my friends in the group had precisely the same misunderstanding as did the reporter. It was an honest mistake."

I think that might have been what Althouse was getting at by saying it wasn't a matter of *motive* but of ideology... or something like that.

People make honest mistakes, but we tend to make mistakes of a certain sort, particularly when it comes to interpretation, according to our prejudices. We tend to hear what we expect to hear.

If nothing else, wouldn't a student (or other person in attendance) be sorting the speakers in their head (which leads to other sorts of mistakes) and have wondered "who is arguing the other side" and have at least noticed? (Even if it wasn't the *other* side at all, in this case.) If someone isn't actually *looking* for which presenter is offering the alternative opinions, isn't that a problem too?

Why would you go to a newspaper to get an accurate report about what happened?

I got interviewed by the NYTs during the Florida recount.

The "journalist" quoted me 3 seperate times as 3 seperate people. He added a southern dialect to the 2nd quote in a way that made it sound ignorant and uneducated. For the 3rd quote, he dressed me in a "hooded shirt", I guess to evoke the KKK.

So I always get a kick when people insist that the MSM doesn't deliberately lie.